[extropy-chat] C-R-Newsletter #33

[MIKE TREDER]

Center for Responsible Nanotechnology Newsletter #33
August 31, 2005

To read this on the Web, with nice formatting and hyperlinks, go to
http://www.crnano.org/archive05.htm#33

CONTENTS

- CRN Forms Policy Task Force
- Eric Drexler Joins Nanorex
- Connecticut Schools Go Nano
- NASA Website Covers CRN Work
- CRN Goes to Vermont
- CRN Goes to Chicago
- CRN Goes to Bootcamp
- Dimensions of Development
- 13th Foresight Conference
- Feature Essay: Molecular Manufacturing Design Software

==========

We’re a little late getting the C-R-Newsletter out this month, but as
you can see, we’ve been extremely busy. To keep up with the latest
happenings on a daily basis, be sure to check our Responsible
Nanotechnology weblog at http://CRNano.typepad.com/

NOTE: In the items below, links are indicated with [brackets], and shown
at the end of each item.


CRN Forms Policy Task Force

The big news this month is that [CRN announced] the formation of a new
Global Task Force to study the societal implications of advanced
nanotechnology. Bringing together a diverse group of world-class experts
from multiple disciplines, CRN will lead an historic, collaborative
effort to develop comprehensive policy recommendations for the safe and
responsible use of molecular manufacturing.

Just [two weeks] after the initial announcement, which mentioned four
“charter members” of the CRN Task Force, we're up to 39 participants
from six different countries. In addition, three organizations are
publicly supporting this effort: the Society of Manufacturing Engineers,
the Society of Police Futurists International, and the Nanotechnology
Now web portal.

Several online planning sessions have been held, and the CRN Task Force
is now beginning its initial task: to itemize the necessary information
that must be available in order to design wise and effective policy.

http://www.crnano.org/PR-charter.htm
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/08/crn_task_force_.html


Eric Drexler Joins Nanorex

Nanorex, a molecular engineering software company based in Michigan, has
named [Dr. K. Eric Drexler] as the company’s Chief Technical Advisor.
[The company] said that Drexler will play a leading role in shaping
Nanorex's product strategy and advancing the company’s academic outreach
programs.

Often described as the 'father of nanotechnology', Eric Drexler is on
the [Board of Advisors] for CRN. His groundbreaking theoretical research
has been the basis for three books, including [“Nanosystems: Molecular
Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation”], and numerous journal
articles. Last year, he collaborated with Chris Phoenix, CRN's Director
of Research, on [“Safe Exponential Manufacturing”], published in the
Institute of Physics journal “Nanotechnology.”

In 1986, Drexler founded the [Foresight Nanotech Institute], a
non-profit think tank and public interest organization focused on
nanotechnology. He was awarded a PhD from MIT in Molecular
Nanotechnology (the first degree of its kind). Drexler is expected to be
deeply involved in the project to develop a [Technology Roadmap for
Productive Nanosystems], recently announced by Foresight and the
Battelle research organization.

http://e-drexler.com/p/idx04/00/0404drexlerBioCV.html
http://www.nanorex.com/
http://www.crnano.org/about_us.htm#Advisors
http://www.crnano.org/5min.htm
http://www.crnano.org/papers.htm#Goo
http://www.foresight.org/
http://www.foresight.org/cms/press_center/128


Connecticut Schools Go Nano

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell has enacted a [new law] requiring the
Commissioner of Higher Education in her state to review the inclusion of
nanotechnology, molecular manufacturing and advanced and developing
technologies at institutions of higher education.

CRN is pleased to note that this measure specifically designates
molecular manufacturing as something that should be studied for
inclusion in the curriculum at institutions of higher education. We
encourage other states -- and indeed, other countries -- to follow
Connecticut's lead.

http://tinyurl.com/aljbt


NASA Website Covers CRN Work

The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), an independent,
NASA-funded organization located in Atlanta, Georgia, was created to
promote forward-looking research on radical space technologies that will
take 10 to 40 years to come to fruition. Last year, NIAC [awarded a
grant] to Chris Phoenix, CRN’s Director of Research, to conduct a
feasibility study of nanoscale manufacturing.

On NASA’s website, [an article] titled “The Next Giant Leap” highlights
the work NIAC is funding in nanotechnology research, and includes a
description of the 112-page report Chris presented to them. We
congratulate Chris on this much-deserved recognition.

http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/09/niac_funds_crn_.html
http://tinyurl.com/94luq


CRN Goes to Vermont

In late July, CRN principals Mike Treder and Chris Phoenix were invited
to participate in a [special workshop] on ‘geoethical nanotechnology,’
held at a beautiful mountain retreat in Vermont. Our gracious host was
Martine Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics Corporation, and founder
of the [Terasem Movement Foundation.]

Among those [making presentations] were Ray Kurzweil, CEO of Kurzweil
Technologies; Professor Frank Tipler of Tulane University; Douglas
Mulhall, author of “Our Molecular Future”; and Dr. Barry Blumberg, a
Nobel Prize-winner in medicine and Founding Director of the NASA
Astrobiology Institute. CRN’s PowerPoint presentation for the event is
available online [here.]

Geoethical nanotechnology is defined as: the development and
implementation under a global regulatory framework of machines capable
of assembling molecules into a wide variety of objects, in a broad range
of sizes, and in potentially vast quantities.

http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/about_geoethica.html
http://terasemfoundation.org/about.htm
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/applications_an.html
http://www.terasemfoundation.org/webcast/ppt/Treder.ppt


CRN Goes to Chicago

Also in July, CRN Executive Director Mike Treder gave talks at two
events in Chicago. First, at a special [nanotech symposium], Mike
delivered a presentation called [“The Flat Horizon Problem:
Nanotechnology on an Upward Slope”].

Then, during the annual conference of the World Future Society, Mike
made a speech titled, [“Do Sweat the Small Stuff: Why Everyone Should
Care About Nanotechnology”]. The conference, [WorldFuture 2005:
Foresight, Innovation, and Strategy], was managed excellently and
enjoyed huge attendance.

http://www.crnano.org/SymposiumonNanotechnology_July05,Chicago_.pdf
http://www.crnano.org/Speech%20-%20Upward%20Slope.ppt
http://www.crnano.org/Speech%20-%20WFS%20-%20Web%20Version.ppt
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/08/wfs_conference_.html


CRN Goes to Bootcamp

In mid-July, CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix spent four days in
Washington DC at a [Nano Training Bootcamp] sponsored by the ASME. He
called it “quite a brain-stretcher.” Topics included quantum mechanics,
optics, thermoelectrics, nanolithography, and much more. Chris provided
us with extensive blog reports during the event, so you can read about
all the tech-talk from [Day One], [Day Two], [Day Three], and [Day Four].

http://www.asmeconferences.org/nanobootcamp05/speakers.cfm
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/nano_training_b.html
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc.html
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc_1.html
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/asme_nano_bootc_2.html


Dimensions of Development

Many factors will determine how soon and how safely molecular
manufacturing is integrated into society, including where, how openly,
and how rapidly it is developed. Because nanotech manufacturing could be
so disruptive and destabilizing, it is essential that we learn as much
as possible about those factors and others. The more we know, the better
we may be able to guide and manage this revolutionary transformation.

Mike Treder’s [latest essay] for “Future Brief” describes six different
dimensions — Number, Style, Venue, Approach, Program, and Pace — along
which molecular manufacturing may be developed. Making effective policy
for the safe and responsible use of advanced nanotechnology will require
a deep and comprehensive understanding of all six dimensions. To be
effective, a coordinated and integrated strategy of multiple
complimentary policies must be designed and implemented. (Note: At the
time the essay was published, the [CRN Global Task Force on Implications
and Policy] had not yet been announced.)

http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederdimensions004.asp
http://www.crnano.org/PR-charter.htm


13th Foresight Conference

CRN is proud to be a media sponsor for the [13th Foresight Conference]
on Advanced Nanotechnology. The title of the conference this year is
"Advancing Beneficial Nanotechnology: Focusing on the Cutting Edge," and
it will be divided into three stand-alone, complementary sessions —
Vision, Applications & Policy, and Research — spread over six days.

The conference is October 22-27, 2005, in San Francisco, California.
They've got a great lineup of speakers, so we hope to see you there.

http://foresight.org/conference2005/index.html


Feature Essay: Molecular Manufacturing Design Software
Chris Phoenix, Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology

Nanofactories, controlled by computerized blueprints, will be able to
build a vast range of high performance products. However, efficient
product design will require advanced software.

Different kinds of products will require different approaches to design.
Some, such as high-performance supercomputers and advanced medical
devices, will be packed with functionality and will require large
amounts of research and invention. For these products, the hardest part
of design will be knowing what you want to build in the first place. The
ability to build test hardware rapidly and inexpensively will make it
easier to do the necessary research, but that is not the focus of this
essay.

There are many products that we easily could imagine and that a
nanofactory easily could build if told exactly how. But as any computer
programmer knows, it's not easy to tell a computer what you want it to
do—it's more or less like trying to direct a blind person to cook a meal
in an unfamiliar kitchen. One mistake, and the food is spilled or the
stove catches fire.

Computer users have an easier time of it. To continue the analogy, if
the blind person had become familiar with the kitchen, instructions
could be given on the level of “Get the onions from the left-hand
vegetable drawer” rather than “Move your hand two inches to your
right... a bit more... pull the handle... bend down and reach forward...
farther... open the drawer... feel the round things?” It is the job of
the programmer to write the low-level instructions that create
appliances from obstacles.

Another advantage of modern computers, from the user's point of view, is
their input devices. Instead of typing a number, a user can simply move
a mouse, and a relatively simple routine can translate its motion into
the desired number, and the number into the desired operation such as
moving a pointer or a scroll bar.

Suppose I wanted to design a motorcycle. Today, I would have to do
engineering to determine stresses and strains, and design a structure to
support them. The engineering would have to take into account the
materials and fasteners, which in turn would have to be designed for
inexpensive assembly. But these choices would limit the material
properties, perhaps requiring several iterations of design. And that's
just for the frame.

Next, I would have to choose components for a suspension system,
configure an engine, add an electrical system and a braking system, and
mount a fuel tank. Then, I would have to design each element of the user
interface, from the seat to the handgrips to the lights behind the dials
on the instrument panel. Each thing the user would see or touch would
have to be made attractive, and simultaneously specified in a way that
could be molded or shaped. And each component would have to stay out of
the way of the others: the engine would have to fit inside the frame,
the fuel tank might have to be molded to avoid the cylinder heads or the
battery, and the brake lines would have to be routed from the handlebars
and along the frame, adding expense to the manufacturing process and
complexity to the design process.

As I described in lat month’s essay, most nanofactory-built human-scale
products will be mostly empty space due to the awesomely high
performance of both active and passive components. It will not be
necessary to worry much about keeping components out of each other's
way, because the components will be so small that they can be put almost
anywhere. This means that, for example, the frame can be designed
without worrying where the motor will be, because the motor will be a
few microns of nanoscale motors lining the axles. Rather than routing
large hydraulic brake lines, it will be possible to run highly redundant
microscopic signal lines controlling the calipers—or more likely, the
regenerative braking functionality built into the motors.

It will not be necessary to worry about design for manufacturability.
With a planar-assembly nanofactory, almost any shape can be made as
easily as any other, because the shapes are made by adding sub-micron
nanoblocks to selected locations in a supported plane of the growing
product. There will be less constraint on form than there is in sand
casting of metals, and of course far more precision. This also means
that what is built can contain functional components incorporated in the
structure. Rather than building a frame and mounting other pieces later,
the frame can be built with all components installed, forming a complete
product. This does require functional joints between nanoblocks, but
this is a small price to pay for such flexibility.

To specify functionality of a product, in many cases it will be
sufficient to describe the desired functionality in the abstract without
worrying about its physical implementation. If every cubic millimeter of
the product contains a networked computer—which is quite possible, and
may be the default—then to send a signal from point A to point B
requires no more than specifying the points. Distributing energy or even
transporting materials may not require much more attention: a rapidly
rotating diamond shaft can transport more than a watt per square micron,
and would be small enough to route automatically through almost any
structure; pipes can be made significantly smaller if they are
configured with continually inverting liners to reduce drag.

Thus, to design the acceleration and braking behavior of the motorcycle,
it might be enough to specify the desired torque on the wheels as a
function of speed, tire skidding, and brake and throttle position. A
spreadsheet-like interface could calculate the necessary power and force
for the motors, and from that derive the necessary axle thickness. The
battery would be fairly massive, so the user would position it, but
might not have to worry about the motor-battery connection, and
certainly should not have to design the motor controller.

In order to include high-functionality materials such as motor arrays or
stress-reporting materials, it would be necessary to start with a
library of well-characterized “virtual materials” with standard
functionality. This approach could significantly reduce the functional
density of the virtual material compared to what would be possible with
a custom-designed solution, but this would be acceptable for many
applications, because functional density of nano-built equipment may be
anywhere from six to eighteen orders of magnitude better than today's
equipment. Virtual materials could also be used to specify material
properties such as density and elasticity over a wide range, or
implement active materials that changed attributes such as color or
shape under software control.

Prototypes as well as consumer products could be heavily instrumented,
warning of unexpected operating conditions such as excessive stress or
wear on any part. Rather than careful calculations to determine the
tradeoff between weight and strength, it might be better to build a
first-guess model, try it on increasingly rough roads at increasingly
high speeds, and measure rather than calculate the required strength.
Once some parameters had been determined, a new version could be
spreadsheeted and built in an hour or so at low cost. It would be
unnecessary to trade time for money by doing careful calculations to
minimize the number of prototypes. Then, for a low-performance
application like a motorcycle, the final product could be built ten
times stronger than was thought to be necessary without sacrificing much
mass or cost.

There are only a few sources of shape requirements. One is geometrical:
round things roll, flat things stack, and triangles make good trusses.
These shapes tend to be simple to specify, though some applications like
fluid handling can require intricate curves. The second source of shape
is compatibility with other shapes, as in a piece that must fit snugly
to another piece. These shapes can frequently be input from existing
databases or scanned from an existing object. A third source of shape is
user preference. A look at the shapes of pen barrels, door handles, and
eyeglasses shows that users are pleased by some pretty idiosyncratic
shapes.

To input arbitrary shapes into the blueprint, it may be useful to have
some kind of interface that implements or simulates a moldable material
like clay or taffy. A blob could simply be molded or stretched into a
pleasing shape. Another useful technique could be to present the
designer or user with several variations on a theme, let them select the
best one, and build new variations on that until a sufficiently pleasing
version is produced.

Although there is more to product design than the inputs described here,
this should give some flavor of how much more convenient it could be
with computer-controlled rapid prototyping of complete products. Elegant
computer-input devices, pervasive instrumentation and signal processing,
virtual material libraries, inexpensive creation of one-off
spreadsheeted prototypes, and several other techniques could make
product design more like a combination of graphic arts and computer
programming than the complex, slow, and expensive process it is today.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FUNDRAISING ALERT!

Recent developments in efforts to roadmap the technical steps toward
molecular manufacturing make the work of CRN more important than ever.

It is critical that we examine the global implications of this rapidly
emerging technology, and begin designing wise and effective policy.
That’s why we have formed the CRN Task Force.

But it won’t be easy. We need to grow, and rapidly, to meet the
expanding challenge.

Your donation to CRN will help us to achieve that growth.
We rely largely on individual donations and small grants for our survival.

To make a contribution on-line click this link >
https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=5594

This is important work and we welcome your participation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Fine Print:

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology(TM) is an affiliate of World
Care(R), an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. All
donations to CRN are handled through World Care. The opinions expressed
by CRN do not necessarily reflect those of World Care.

Sign up for a FREE subscription to the C-R-Newsletter -- 
http://crnano.org/contact.htm#Newsletter